Dick
Fisher's inventive "In Search of the Historical Adam: Part I"
(December 1993) presents solutions to perceived difficulties in biblical
interpretation. Unfortunately, his constructions create grave new problems. Some
minor vagaries spring from the single-minded pursuit of an obsession, like the
production of nomadic Nodites (245), when a simpler reading refers nod to
Cain's wanderings.

More serious
complications require overlooking major consequences following from the
"solution." For example, if Adam lived about 5000 B.C., then Noah must
be dated approximately a millennium and a half later. If he lived in
Mesopotamia, Ur, Kish, Erech and other communities were already in existence.

It would take at least
ten-cubits of water to float a loaded vessel the size of the Ark. To this must
be added the rise to reach the level where the Ark was built, plus enough
additional depth to avoid grounding it on every hillock along the bank. That
this is possible seems evidenced by the "flood deposits" at Ur and
Kish, although a great inundation should have left a single more widespread
layer of sediment. Further, the deposits may be, not the result of floods, but
of shifts in the river channel. Neither of the two at Kish appear to be
contemporary with the one at Ur. Even discounting this and positing a new
channel to float the Ark, such a massive flow of water would carry the Ark
downstream, southward into the Persian Gulf, not northward toward the mountains
of Ararat. In addition, building and stocking a huge vessel seems ridiculous
when, on Fisher's interpretation, a short trek would have put everyone safely
out of reach of any reasonable flood crest. The Zagros Mountains (ancient Elam,
from the Accadian word for highlands), along with their northern extension, are
within a hundred miles of the ancient Tigris. There are also hills nearly as
close to the Euphrates.

The original settlers
of the Americas came long before 3500 B.C., for the Bering land bridge closed
more than 8,000 years ago. How, then, can aboriginal Americans have flood
legends? Additionally, the geographic isolation of Australians, like Americans,
long precedes Fisher's date for Adam. They can, by descent from the same remote
ancestor as Adam, be of one blood. But what are the theological consequences of
having no part in the Adamic or Noahic covenants? How were they made sinners by
one man's disobedience (Romans 5:19, see also vv. 12, 15-18)? This seems to go
beyond legislation to condemnation without representation.

If, as Fisher claims,
Adam merely had a special mission given to him (p. 245), using bara, create,
to describe this (Genesis 5:1) seems grossly excessive. Further, if Adam was
only one of a large number of Homo sapiens sapiens alive at the time,
could not God have communicated an adequate sense of this mission to a
contemporary woman? Did he have to miraculously produce Eve to meet the need?
Were all human females too stupid to catch on when God did the explaining? Also,
why did God parade the animals past Adam in search of "an help meet for
him" (2:18-20)? Would he imply that Equus asinus was a better
candidate than any of the many available female H. s. sapiens?

On the other hand, if
Adam were a distinct creation in the midst of a population which merely looked
like him, we have a reason for Eve not being a woman from the surrounding
peoples. But then Adam cannot be their representative, for he does not have the
proper kinship. In this case, it is not merely the distant Americans and
Australians who do not fall under Adam's hegemony. Today we cannot tell which of
us is of pure Adamic descent, of mixed Adamic descent, and of non-Adamic
descent. If the last class are to be saved, we need to totally rethink
soteriology. Indeed, the hybrid class seems to produce problems enough.

In addition, unless
Adam was severely retarded, how could he be so ignorant about clothing that God
had to provide a covering? And why, coming from a long-established culture,
would Adam have to name all the beasts and birds? None of this rings true.

Finally, the same issue
of Perspectives contains Edwin Yamauchi's "Metal Sources and
Metallurgy in the Biblical World," which notes that Mesopotamia has no gold
sources (p. 257). Yet Fisher, citing the Biblical reference, writes that one of
the rivers of Eden was located where gold was abundant (pp. 248f). This
underscores the problem of uncritically locating the Garden of Eden in
Mesopotamia, the traditional spot, while revising so many other notions.

I appreciate Fisher's
attempt to look at matters in a different way. Such a novel approach is
necessary to solve the problems of which we become aware. It was Nobel laureate
Albert von Szent-Gyorgyi, I think, who said that we have to look beside problems
to solve them. A new look is certainly somewhat askew in order to reformulate
matters so that unanticipated solutions emerge. But the revised view must be
comprehensive, broad enough to encompass all the evidence. Tunnel vision like
Fisher's cannot produce the desired results.